by 0x336685bb3a96e13b77e909d7c52e8afcff1e859e (michitodd)
SUMMARY
This is a proposal to set up an intermediate waiting period “cooling period” for new wearable collections to allow returns or refunds if there’s any unexpected issues.
ABSTRACT
Currently there has been frustration from customers purchasing from creators that shortly after have their wearable disabled due to IP infringement or not owning the rights to a design they submitted. As the space is still new knowledge around Creative Commons or design ownership is still quite fresh and so to protect the buyer from being at a loss, there can be a waiting time for new collections so if any issue arises there can be a refund request within the initial 14 day publishing period if a wearable is disabled or updated. Anyone holding this wearable can “burn” it to get a full refund from the held funds regardless of secondary sale or initial sale. Also implementing a “burn” feature wont devalue the product.
This cannot protect users from secondary sale on external platforms.
This wont solve larger issues but start a community dialog and also create a foundation for future framework to protect buyer confidence.
MOTIVATION
After multiple events of users buying from the marketplace and then no longer being able to use that wearable or the new wearable is updated to be completely different from the original purchase some buyers are now nervous or frustrated when supporting new collections. The safest shopping method at the moment is to buy from creators you know but with some extra security for the customer this can be a good buffer to ensure they have a bit of time to request a refund if things get disabled or changed.
IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS
Guidelines updated to reflect the change
Information added to the terms of publishing to avoid confusion
Announced in the discord, town hall and possibly socials
Smart contract for sellers to be updated to have a payment delay for new collections
A count-down added into the UI so users can see how many days they have left before their cooling period is complete
CONCLUSION
This delay on creators will cure reluctance to buy from new creators in the space and also create a safety net for buyers. It will hopefully avoid future use of dao funds for refund requests if IP infringement disables numerous collections and also curve the creators looking to publish with ill intent.
On a positive note I hope this will also encourage users that publish only to then leave to stay longer in the platform as they wait for their funds (resulting in a single first payment) and extend their Decentraland experience!
Some key feedback I’ve received but can’t really solve is around how will users know when an item has been disabled or updated. I think this needs to be a larger discussion and seperate governance around updating/disabling and the UI design for wearables.
I support this but I want to see how the rest of the community votes prior to voting so as not to split the in favor votes. Thanks for attempting to protect the community of wearables consumers Michi.
I’m going to vote for the maximum amount of time between a purchase and attainment of funds for a new creator because I’ve been burned a lot by buying new wearables and having the creator change the price. I used to try and be the first person to support a new artist, because I know how important that first or second sale can be. I’m also open to hearing feedback from the community
It will create abuse, people could buy an item only for a single event then return it, or buy and return a wearable continuously to never make the sale final
I believe that refunds would only be granted if there was an issue with the upload, and to everyone who applied. It wouldn’t allow for no-questions-asked refunds.
I like this idea and I do think it would help to provide a cushion of protection for users. I believe the Curation Committee does a good job at flagging these things at first submission, but sometimes an item gets missed. Knowing that one isn’t out of their MANA due to error, negligence, or maliciousness can be helpful.
This is correct! Refund option if disabled or updated xxdays after approval to avoid abuse @HPrivakos ~~~
I can also re-review language used to make sure its super clear.
Initially i was thinking this applies to first time creators but I think implementation would be too difficult and also wouldn’t prevent some of the recent issues that came about around a large number of collections needing to be disabled and re-reviewed, leaving collectors at a loss.
this is very much out of my wheelhouse, but considering this is just a pre-proposal i think it makes a lot of sense even if there are some objections. you can gather feedback (such as what HP said about abuse) and continue going forward
Sounds like you are not holding the curation committee accountable for proper curation. This is a service that is being paid for by the DAO and on behalf of the creator economy. Your suggestion punishes creators who may not be able to afford to wait that long to see a return on their investment or efforts.
If the creator is not ready to receive the funds, the wearable shouldn’t go live and it should be on the curation committee to complete their review.
In addition, maybe the curation committee should have a fund set aside to rebuy all the wearables they missed in the curation process that are suddenly revoked. If there is no accountability in approving the wearable, the curators’s only real KPI is pushing through as much as possible to collect the fee.
This proposal was discussed with members of the community and requested to go ahead as a safety net for buyers and not from the curation committee. My recommendation is a cooling period and not a punishment to anyone but I appreciate your feedback and ongoing support of the curation committee. Currently curators cannot be the judges of IP but the legal team is. (As per the approval process) We can flag anything that could be IP infringement and only have authority to disable if there’s a complaint which then also should be directed to legal but we disable to avoid any further purchases.
This has nothing to do with accountability or the curation process but if your feedback is the committee should have DAO funds set aside to refund users that purchase content rather than a cooling period, I’m happy to set up an alternative poll for community feedback. The fact is there is currently no way to get a refund if something gets approved but gets updated or disabled for whatever reason. (Which is also why this has been set up to gauge community opinions, it’s not a definitive solution)
With regards to a fund to cover refunds, I was not talking about the funds retained by the DAO. More like an approach where a curator is staking to keep them honest and focused. Not looking to open other attack vectors against the DAO funds.
If the IP infringement issue is dealt with in legal, a more formal review process should be established by legal so that wearables are not suddenly getting revoked.
Consumer protection, given there is a review process, should start with hardening the process, not delaying payments.
With current feedback in this proposal it obviously won’t move forward but I hope to continue the discussion to see how we can build buyer trust back for new creators. Appreciate the feedback and I’ll bring this up next curation meeting. Currently legal process isn’t fully visible to the curators so I’ll need to get more information.
As I understand it, in the case of KingX, he was yoinking designs off of sites like sketchfab and saying they were creative commons, when in fact they had been essentially pirated from services like Ready Player Me and then uploaded elsewhere, thereby “laundering” them in a sense. The legal team was being referred to these “laundered” listings and giving the thumbs up. Now, whether any of the people ripping off other people’s designs were uploading the GLBs themselves and then submitting them as a wearable based on a “creative commons” license is an open research question and beyond the scope of this proposal.
I do agree that there should be some accountability though. If someone is on one of these committees and they routinely crank out subpar work, they kind of deserve to get penalized. Maybe the proposed refunds should come out of whatever they’re earning to be on the committee.
Lol just to make it SUPER clear @MorrisMustang@ZESTYBEAM the only real reason a collection would be disabled within the first few weeks of publishing is if it’s had complaints about IP infringement. Referencing the KingX situation we the curators flagged it, complained that it was getting approved and requested it not be approved but we have zero authority on this and it’s the legal committee which is why it’s above our heads.
Going back to Morris Mustangs point about refining the process, the curation committee is very much in favor of not allowing anything with Creative Commons licensing to be allowed for approval but the legal committee doesn’t agree.
If we say a solution is curators “hold more accountability” and stake a % of earnings from the time we spend curating a collection then it’s disabled, the person trying to abuse the marketplace will get the profits from community then the curators stake will be distributed to anyone who purchased meaning there’s a chance you’ll only get a % of the sale back.
Then angry users will continue to say “curators need to do a better job” when we actually have no say or authority on this matter. Even when it’s extremely obvious a rip and we don’t want to approve, we have no way of rejecting and if we do then our role as a curator will be questioned as an abuse of power.
There are also cases of IP issues where a creator hasn’t been paid for their service and someone publishes without their permission, someone decides to retexture something that doesn’t belong to them, a user can download from builder and publish a wearable that they didn’t design and more.
Adding some sort of security for buyers is essential at the moment when there are a lot of people now scared to purchase from new creators in the space. Doesn’t need to be this particular solution but I’m glad this can start the discussion.
Thanks for clarifying. In that case, I think any refunds should be deducted from the total compensation for the legal team, before they get paid anything. That would force them to shape up or ship out.
I know this sounds mean (And it’s supposed to be), but I’m frustrated as a buyer by this situation, to the point that my interest in participating in the market has greatly diminished, because what are the odds that the legal team is going to make another blunder even in the face of new information?
Very high lol
Which is why I hope to even raise this tension from the community into a clear solution rather than waiting for the next wave of people pushing IP. The legal team doesn’t get a direct commission or payment for any wearable reviews or approvals but possibly a salary.
Currently there isn’t a way to get refunded and anyone accidentally getting around legal can take the money and rug which we’ve seen on multiple occasions. Personally it’s very frustrating for me to see and I really hope the discussion can be continued.
I’ll also be addressing this in the next curators meeting to get further peer feedback.
I’ve been thinking on this one. It seems like the root of the problem is that the legal team is laser focused on the legal aspect of a given work, which to them is easily solved by seeing that it has a Creative Commons license, and they don’t care even slightly about the art, because they’re lawyers, not artists (Which, inherently, there’s nothing wrong with, as painful as that is to think about). The irony is how this opens up legal liability because of some of the previously outlined abuses.
I’m firmly in the camp that the marketplace should be a place of quality as opposed to quantity, and those pieces that go up should either be completely original or a rework from an artist who is coming into DCL and downscaling some of their previous work to DCL’s specs (Kollectiff’s contracted downscaling work for the MetaHelmets linked wearable project comes to mind). I’d rather pay for some wearable of middling quality that I know a community member made as opposed to a suspiciously cheap mythic that looks great but was probably lifted from a more talented artist.
Hi, interesting question. IP rights must be respected no matter its Decentralized or Centralized world, if someones steals others design, its a problem. But 30 days it’s a pretty big period. I think DCL must move to something automative which will check it through IP bases or partnership with lawyer companies.
I really dig the forward thinking Michi. I’m all for implementing ways to protect buyers/supporters. As a a seller I wouldn’t mind waiting for a couple weeks. It might help me not spend it all immediately
The cooling period might not solve the entire issue forever but I think a may be a good idea to see how a version of this might give a little more of a chance at fairness to buyers. I think looking into how the Legal Team might be able to make some development on a structure for addressing IP issues might be the ticket for a lot of things. But i can see how having limited information makes this difficult to “make happen”. I definitely look forward to hearing about what may have come up and been discussed at the next curators meeting. And hopefully, with some communication, the curators might be able to share some wants/needs with the legal team and maybe come to some agreements.
